About Economy in cRPG

[jivex5k]

Im all for limited funds on vendors. I want to throw some stuff away. (On the ground!)

Edited October 9, 2012 by jivex5k

[Hassat Hunter]

Registered 1 October... 6 October... 172 posts O_O

It's gotten worse!

 

I agree to everything of #1, and... nothing of the rest.

And yes, the definite solution would be to provide quality items in shops. Baldur's Gate II had this, with many unique and powerful shop items. So did KOTOR1 where all the best stuff was in shops. Money was worthless in KOTOR2 when the best stuff dropped on the street.

Also of course a steady stream of healing and buff potions could drain the cash, if they aren't dropped more often than used, as happens in most RPG's.

[Frenetic Pony]

You have to be careful with more than one type of currency.

 

Borderlands 2 has that. It's called Irridium, and since it can only buy certain items, items I quickly ran out of needing far before I ran out of Irridium, it became this useless thing that I'd actually be annoyed to get. "Oh, more Irridium. Could have been something useful. But now I've got more purple junk."

 

I suppose, if you made certain currency able to be used in certain areas, instead of only for buying certain things, with an exchange rate plus fee that made you lose money, then it might be a neat thing. But I'm thinking possibly not, and might just annoy people.

 

 

All in all, the best I can think of is Dragon Age. There were so many ultra high cost and highly effective items that I wanted that it drove me to actually want money in return. Because there were more than I could ever buy, with the way money was limited, there was always a motivation to get money. I'm fairly certain, beyond avoiding any obvious exploits, that's the real goal of an economy in these types of games.

[Radres]

I think the main question is, how would having a dynamic economy serve story-telling purposes. RPGs ( not action RPGs) aim to tell a story.

 

Crossroads keep was very well implemented and very detailed because it was part of the story. Unless there is similar angle in P:E i hope Obsidian doesn't spent resources on something that really doesn't adds to the story . When i go to a shop in an RPG it can have to goals,

 

1-) I want to sell junk or my inventory is full

2-) I want to buy something in order to upgrade my gear so i become more powerfull.

 

So a system where merchants have unlimited amount of gold makes sure these become not much of a hassle. Otherwise i don't see much point in having dynamic economy where i have to run around to find a merchant with enough gold, which really doesn't sounds fun at all.

 

 

[rjshae]

My thinking is that the impact of magic on the economy may not be accurately portrayed in RPGs. Even a low end +1 weapon is far more expensive than what the average Joe can afford, so why would a bunch of those be on sale at ye olde weapon shoppe?

 

Wizard guilds likely play a more important role in the economy than is normally portrayed. Lower level Wizards may act as commissioning agents that are aware of the goods available and serve as retailers, while higher level Wizards manage and control the availability of items. You go to a low level Wizard retailer, talk to the sales agent, select an item you'd like and put down a payment, then the item is transported (teleported?) to the retailer and you can pick it up a day or two later. In turn, high-level Wizards in cities have access to master artisans that can build the items, with the Wizard instilling them with power and transporting them to the retailer.

 

There may be multiple Wizard guilds that have different item specialties. The stock that a Wizard retailer has available depends on the guild they belong to, and their ranking and influence within the guild. Most rural Wizards would only have lower level items available, while an influential city Wizard gets access to better goods. The better connected Wizard retailers may also be able to arrange access to auctions for the most powerful items.

Edited October 11, 2012 by rjshae

[Lady Evenstar]

I'd rather they control income via drop rates than have them make trade a hassle. The old D&D convention of needing to store things until you had a full pack of them since the price went down with each batch of short swords (or whatever) sold was just annoying.

[Jarmo]

Fable had a dynamic economy system trying to be all clever.

Item prices were calculated by supply and demand, if you sold a lot of something that'd bring the price down and if you bought something the price would increase.

I think the rarity also factored in.

 

So if a barrel of beer would cost 100GP and you'd buy all hundred of them from the shop, now the demand seems to be high and the amount they have is low,

so the shopkeeper would mark the price up to 150.

 

Then you'd sell them all back for a nice profit of 50GP per barrel. Now they have a surplus so theyll mark the price down to 75.

 

Then you buy them all back again.

 

What I'm saying here, is if there's an attempt to dynamize the economy, it'd better be a good one.

And it's probably not worth the effort anyway.

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, obviously, in any *good* RPG (since you mention fable) you don't buy and sell at the same price. No one expects that. It's also not realistic from the vendor, and leads exactly to the exploits portraited.

 

Also a good thing to include with dynamic pricing would be exactly something to counter above 2 strategies. And that is that the price isn't adjusted after the sale, but already being calculated. So if you add 10 of X for 100 it's 1000, then the price increases to 105. Going to eleven immediately gives 1105, not still 1100.

So stocking up and selling all at once, or buying a lot at once isn't really a tactic that's worthwhile...

[Jarmo]

There might have been an uptick, which you could bypass by big enough purchase.

 

As for the counter, say you go buy a horse and it's $1000, then you ask what's the price if you buy a 100 of them.

They ain't going to say "in that case it'll be $1200 each". Most likely you'll get a discount to, say $900.

 

Making the game economy with the mindset of punishing the player isn't going to lead anyplace good either.

[Hassat Hunter]

As for the counter, say you go buy a horse and it's $1000, then you ask what's the price if you buy a 100 of them.

They ain't going to say "in that case it'll be $1200 each"

They probably will if they only have 5 horses and the other 95 need to be expensively shipped from elsewhere, or completely bred with all costs attached etc.

[comport9]

A proper economy is very difficult to emulate. The biggest problem is shopkeepers never have to worry about paying the rent... as such they'll buy anything and everything, (albeit at a steep discount), even if there isn't a market for the item. Which is the next problem: what IS the market!? Who's buying the stuff you're selling?

 

To do even a close aproximation you'd have to program in NPC needs and wants, with corresponding jobs and taxes, as well as resource requirements and alot time to developing those resources. Then put it altogether so that shopkeepers prices accurately reflect the market. While I'd love it, I'm sure it's more work than it's worth.

 

Therefore devs go the cheap way: each item has a buy and sell price, with maybe a little variation for locale and how many you've sold/purchased prior. Either with shopkeepers having infinite money, or limited money that grows over time... it's a simple illusion that we all accept to get to the "fun" part of the game: kill'n baddies.

Edited October 12, 2012 by comport9

[AGX-17]

It might be a bit of a stretch, but items you sell should end up in the hands of NPCs. Like you go recruit some novice Adventurer and he's wearing trashy gear you pawned off after a disappointing dungeon run!

 

What about rare random traveling merchants & caravans on the road?

 

Like, only 2-3 in the world and chances are you would meet about 1~ maybe 2 in one playthrough would be pretty slim. New Game+ feature, if you met one last gameplay there's higher chance you'll meet one of the others? Eeeeeh I doon't knoow *italian shrug*

 

It wouldn't be much of a world if there were only 2-3 travelling merchants. City-states like Firenze and Milano flourished in the Renaissance due to hundreds or thousands of merchant ships passing through their ports every year, not one or two. If you have 2-3 travelling merchants passing through your town in a given year, your town is probably an insignificant hamlet. Probably with rumors of a terrible curse/disease/demon.

Edited October 12, 2012 by AGX-17

[Valorian]

Now that a Stronghold is imminent, I just hope it doesn't become a business simulator with an endless influx of money per day/week/month that makes all depletable sources of money (like loot) trivial if you're patient enough... And lets you buy all the items you want present in the game.

 

I won't hold my breath on it though.

[Orogun01]

If they are going to do an in-game economy system they should at least let the player participate in trading. Instead of carrying three swords let the player be able to use them to pay off a trade merchandise that may fetch a higher price in another city. In a setting where the player travels regularly in between cities it seems like a nice way to let the smart people make a profit without carrying exorbitant amounts of loot.

More over I would love it if the decisions you take in the game affect the economy, Alpha Protocol style.

[Mazhlekov]

Personally, I think the bigger problem with shop is its usefulness in mid to late game. The only function for shops are places where the player can sell off his/her loot. Few if any game would sell the best weapon or equipment in a shop because it cheapens the reward the game give you from questing or adventuring which is the bulk of the game.

 

Problem with shop and its usefulness in mid to late game is problem of the game balance!!

The functions of shops is not only this my friend, this is the place where you can refill your supplies, ask about unknown items, weapons, forging components... take a quests, make chats and learn the the news and legends...

If the end of the game in some store you see a weapon that cost a half of the coins you colected in the game it will be no cheap!

If the lot i the game is very limited it will solve lot of the complications with storekeepers, like in Baldurs gate 1....

[Mazhlekov]

I think the most important thing is to make gold less frequent. A problem I had in Skyrim was that a beggar could eat for a week on only 5 gold, and yet within an hour of play I could easily make 1000+ gold from doing basically nothing. I'd like gold to be a bit harder to come by, or atleast make the amounts you aquire less extravagant.

EXELENT!!! I'm on the same opinion!

[Zephyr Falcon]

It's a game not a simulation.

 

Games are about being fun and entertaining, not depicting an intricate economic system. Look it up under "reality isn't fun". So no, you simply can't have it all.

 

I can see that there is the possiblity of a fantasy cRPG fully simulating a complete fantasy world, but it's not this game. Think of a mixture of The Sims, Minecraft, Syrim, Mount&Blade and Transport Tycoon. It could work, but it couldn't be a story driven game. And it's not a game Oblivion would make. In fact economics are a very low priority in a game like PE, as it should be. Many features requested (barter only merchants, limited funds, gold weight, different currencies) would just make the game more tedious, waste the players time and not give anything meaning full back.

 

Oh, and don't feel bad for the cRPG merchants, they always buy things at half their selling price - that's 100% profit per transaction.

[Hassat Hunter]

And it's not a game Oblivion would make.

:D

(I think you mean Obsidian)

[Zephyr Falcon]

And it's not a game Oblivion would make.

:D

(I think you mean Obsidian)

 

Yes, of course - that's just me being stupid. Speaking of me being stupid I've no idea how to edit my post (